<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [SKL] [regression] Random display flickering on Kernel 4.8 with dual-screen"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97450#c28">Comment # 28</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [SKL] [regression] Random display flickering on Kernel 4.8 with dual-screen"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97450">bug 97450</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:przanoni@gmail.com" title="Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@gmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Paulo Zanoni</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to rockorequin from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=97450#c27">comment #27</a>)
<span class="quote">> >> Created <span class=""><a href="attachment.cgi?id=127264" name="attach_127264" title="Paulo's patch rebased vs 4.8.1 (a7fac751ddba)">attachment 127264</a> <a href="attachment.cgi?id=127264&action=edit" title="Paulo's patch rebased vs 4.8.1 (a7fac751ddba)">[details]</a></span> <a href='page.cgi?id=splinter.html&bug=97450&attachment=127264'>[review]</a> [review] [review] [review]
> >> Paulo's patch rebased vs 4.8.1 (a7fac751ddba)
> >
> > this is to apply memory workaround for skl
>
> Thanks, I'm testing 4.8.1 now with that patch applied and also
> drm-i915-gen9-fix-DDB-partitioning-for-multi-screen-cases.patch applied.
>
> > <a href="https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/113642/">https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/113642/</a> is not yet in v4.8.1.
>
> I guessed that... From the log in git in drm-intel-nightly, it looks like
> that commit was made on October 4th, so I guess it must already be in my
> October 11th drm-intel-nightly kernel. Btw, I ran that kernel all day
> without any seeing any flickering issues, full-screen or otherwise.</span >
Thanks a lot for testing the patches!
Based on your comments, I can see that:
- Patch "fix DDB partitioning" improves the situation but doesn't completely
solve the problem
- Patch "unconditionally apply memory WAs" helps solving the remaining issues.
Is that correct?
If yes, then I suppose we'll be able to close the bug once the second patch
lands on the tree.
If not, I do have to point that we have even more fixes on the mailing list,
but then we should probably setup a separate branch with all the fixes applied
so you'll only need to clone that branch instead of having to apply patches
manually and solve conflicts.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>